The change follows objections by two election commissioners and renewed scrutiny of whether previously registered voters removed from electoral rolls should have to reapply as new electors
NEW DELHI — The Election Commission of India (ECI) has removed a declaration linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls from the online version of Form 6, following months of criticism and objections from two of the country’s election commissioners over its inclusion in the statutory application form.
The change comes amid a wider legal dispute over whether voters whose names have been deleted from electoral rolls should be required to apply afresh through Form 6, which is ordinarily intended for people seeking registration as new voters for the first time.
The issue has also reached the Supreme Court in a case concerning Delhi, where the ECI has said that people missing from the draft electoral roll, including previously registered voters, can seek restoration of their names through Form 6.
An investigation published by The Indian Express on November 4, reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had separately questioned the addition of the SIR declaration to the online form.
The additional declaration had been placed between Sections J and K of Form 6 as an annexure. Applicants were required to select one of three statements before proceeding.
They had to indicate whether their own names appeared in an earlier intensive revision of electoral rolls conducted in the early 2000s; whether the names of their parents or grandparents appeared in those rolls; or whether neither their own names nor those of their parents or grandparents appeared there.
The online system did not allow applicants to proceed without answering the question.
According to The Indian Express investigation, Joshi first raised objections in comments dated May 16 and August 13. Sandhu subsequently described the addition as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its removal.
One of the central objections was that Form 6 is not merely an administrative document but a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Any change to it, the commissioners argued, would require a formal legal amendment rather than an administrative decision by the poll panel.
Despite these objections, the additional declaration continued to appear in the online application during the SIR process.
The Commission had previously defended the arrangement when the controversy first became public in September.
In a press statement signed by all three election commissioners on September 26, the ECI said the SIR declaration would remain attached to online Form 6 during the revision period, while the standard statutory form would be used outside that period.
It has now changed that position.
In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the Commission said its Electoral Roll Division decided on October 21 to separate the online application into two components: the statutory Form 6 and a separate SIR declaration.
According to the affidavit cited by The Indian Express, the original decision to combine the two was taken for administrative convenience. The arrangement meant applicants needed only one OTP and one electronic signature instead of completing two separate digital processes.
However, the Commission also acknowledged that the way the declaration appeared on the online portal could give the impression that Form 6 itself had been amended. The affidavit recognised that only the Central Government could amend the statutory form.
The separation addresses the immediate concern about the appearance of an unauthorised amendment, but leaves unresolved the wider question of whether Form 6 is the appropriate procedure for restoring the names of people who were already registered as voters.
Form 6 is designed for people seeking registration as new voters for the first time. Critics argue that someone whose name was already on an electoral roll but was subsequently deleted is in a different legal and factual position from a first-time applicant.
They point to Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, arguing that the ECI can use its powers under this provision to restore names deleted from electoral rolls through a public hearing, without requiring the affected voters to submit a fresh application.
The distinction is particularly significant during the SIR process, which has led to concerns about large numbers of names missing from draft electoral rolls.
The question is whether people whose names have been removed should have to begin the registration process again as new applicants, or whether the authorities should investigate the circumstances of deletion and provide a mechanism for restoring names found to have been removed incorrectly.
A recent Bombay High Court ruling has added another legal dimension to the controversy.
According to a report by LiveLaw, the court considered the position of a voter who had changed their place of residence and was being asked to use Form 6 or the SIR process.
The court distinguished between a person applying for registration for the first time and an existing voter seeking to change their residence. It observed that requiring an already registered voter to submit Form 6 in such circumstances could compel them to make an inaccurate declaration that their name had never appeared on an electoral roll.
The court also noted that making a false declaration could attract consequences under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Although the case concerned a voter who had moved residence, the judgment has wider relevance to the debate over the use of Form 6 for people whose names have been deleted from electoral rolls.
The concern is that applicants should not be required to make declarations that do not reflect their actual circumstances simply because an administrative process directs them to use a particular form.
The issue is also being examined by the Supreme Court in connection with the SIR exercise in Delhi.
On November 3, the ECI told the court that people whose names were missing from the draft electoral roll, including those who had previously been registered, could apply for inclusion through Form 6.
Petitioners have questioned this approach, arguing that previously registered voters should have their status restored rather than being treated as new applicants.
The Commission has said that, in certain circumstances, it would not take action against such applicants for making incorrect declarations. This assurance has itself prompted questions about why different categories of voters should be required to use the same form and whether the existing procedures adequately protect their rights.
The controversy has also prompted demands for greater transparency and accountability in the revision of electoral rolls.
A resolution adopted at a Public Online National Assembly on October 3, 2026, called by the organisation Vote for Democracy, raised concerns over deletions, verification procedures, pending appeals and the use of Forms 6 and 7. More than 100 experts, professionals and activists from across India participated in the assembly.
The resolution called for the removal or resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner, an end to the SIR exercise and restoration of the 2024 electoral rolls, subject to legally required additions and deletions.
It also called for the dissolution of the existing ECI, repeal of the 2023 law governing the appointment of election commissioners and the introduction of a more transparent and accountable appointment process.
Among its other demands were public access to electoral data in machine-readable formats and disclosure of the source code used in systems such as ECINet and ERONet.
The assembly also called for a social audit of electoral rolls, public disclosure of proposed deletions, transparent verification and adequate opportunities for voters to challenge decisions affecting their registration.
The removal of the SIR declaration from online Form 6 resolves one immediate issue: the concern that an additional mandatory requirement had been presented as part of a statutory form without a formal amendment.
However, the broader dispute remains unresolved. The central question is whether voters who were already registered but whose names have been removed should be required to apply through Form 6, or whether the authorities should follow a separate procedure to examine and restore their previous registration.
With the issue before the Supreme Court and concerns raised by the Bombay High Court, the legal and procedural treatment of previously registered voters remains at the centre of the debate over the ECI’s ongoing revision of electoral rolls.
